Publikwerks:As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something,

Fair enough. You and I are on opposite sides here, but this kind of discussion is refreshing. As you can see, the details are sticky here. Trying to cut down on crime by limiting firearm features is very problematic. Many features that make them easy to commit a crime with are the same features that help them be a good self defense weapon or useful in many circumstances.

keypusher:hasty ambush: sweetmelissa31: Do all white football players and their wives look exactly the same? Because this could be a generic photo of any white football player and his wife.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x572]

I was thinking that all football players wives looked the same, you sound racist.

[www.athleteswives.com image 299x433]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 256x320]

Wow, good work. Who is the guy in the top picture?

Russell Kaepernick. Graduated from Nevada and then played a season at Wisconsin in grad school. 1st pick in the 2012 draft. Pretty much universally recognized as the successor to Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?

You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?

You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

Stop

Ok. I'm going to favorite you as "gun grabber, but reasonable. Do not troll" lol

Publikwerks:You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

HeadLever:Publikwerks: As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something,

Fair enough. You and I are on opposite sides here, but this kind of discussion is refreshing. As you can see, the details are sticky here. Trying to cut down on crime by limiting firearm features is very problematic. Many features that make them easy to commit a crime with are the same features that help them be a good self defense weapon or useful in many circumstances.

I agree, cutting down on guns is not the solution. It may be part of it a solution, but it has to be done right, or it has bad repercussions.

I am not against gun ownership, and once my kids get older, I plan on picking up an over/under 12 gauge or a semiautomatic shotgun, because I took a class at LL Bean for father day on skeet shooting, and I had a blast(sorry, bad pun).

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

EyeballKid:Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

EyeballKid:Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.

Dimensio:HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".

...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.

EyeballKid:Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

Crazy people are going to do crazy things. And to be fair, trying to write a law to try and prevent shootings like Newtown is bad. Way more people die in random crimes than in mass shootings. But they are just nameless faces. The reason Newtown got the attention it did was it was little kids. It was shocking, and stood out from the other gun violence. I have a son the age of the Newtown victims, and let me tell you, it farking tore my heart out. But I also know thatemotional law is bad law. And using tragedy to pass a law might work, but I'm not doing it.

IlGreven:Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".

...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.

Yeah, the stress of the situation will do that to you... I mean, what do you do? Do you contact the rental company? Do you try and track down the owner yourself? Do you contact the police? Do you claim the rifle for your own, citing Finders keepers? Do you sell it? Do you take it to the range for a few hours and THEN return it?

As long as you buy your own ammo, and bring it back cleaned, (and I mean a decent cleaning where you tear down the bolt carrier group and use CLP, not just a quick hit of the brush to the ejector port area), it's all good. Just like stea-uh borrowing a sports car. It's understood you bring it back with a full tank and a wax job.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

umad:EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

EyeballKid:Dimensio: When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.

Like how pro-capital punishment people insist that killing people will teach people not to kill people?

The primary argument (from those who do not simply admit that support of the death penalty is based upon a desire for vengeance rather than justice) is that a potential consequence of execution serves to deter homicide. Derision should therefore be based upon the complete lack of any compelling evidence in support of such a conclusion.

The only things in the sports tab that generate more responses than this are nfl threads and wrasslin threads. Drew should stick a gun thread in the tab more often and maybe more people would look at it. This may work for the business tab as well.

Igor Jakovsky:The only things in the sports tab that generate more responses than this are nfl threads and wrasslin threads. Drew should stick a gun thread in the tab more often and maybe more people would look at it. This may work for the business tab as well.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

Yup. And don't forget to only practice free speech using only your voice, handwritten notes on quill and parchment, and paper on old style printing presses. The founders weren't talking about the internet when they wrote the 1st ammendment, after all.

croesius:The Jami Turman Fan Club: Mikey1969: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Mikey1969: Of course, looking at the gun, I also would have my doubts that it was used in any crime, you don't often drop that kind of cabbage on your choice of weapon for drive bys...

It's exactly the kind of weapon you'd use for an assassination attempt.

I can see a TV series now...airheaded hot model wife of an NFL QB by day, airheaded assassin for hire by night...

I would imagine a proper assassination attempt would use a caliber with a bit more oomph.

To really reach out and touch someone:[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 608x335]

Exactly the wrong tool for an assassin. What you want is a .22 pistol with subsonic ammo. You shoot them twice in the back of the head, nobody even notices the report.